Reading in Multiple Orthographies: Differences and Similarities in Reading in Spanish and English for English Learners
The current study unites multiple theories (i.e., the orthographic depth hypothesis and linguistic grain size theory, the simple view of reading, and the common underlying proficiency model) to explore differences in how 113 fourth‐grade Spanish‐speaking English learners (ELs) approached reading in...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Language learning 2015-09, Vol.65 (3), p.596-630 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 630 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 596 |
container_title | Language learning |
container_volume | 65 |
creator | Goodwin, Amanda P. August, Diane Calderon, Margarita |
description | The current study unites multiple theories (i.e., the orthographic depth hypothesis and linguistic grain size theory, the simple view of reading, and the common underlying proficiency model) to explore differences in how 113 fourth‐grade Spanish‐speaking English learners (ELs) approached reading in their native language of Spanish, which is transparent, compared to their second language of English, which is more opaque. Contributions of different linguistic grain sizes (i.e., small grains assessed via phonological decoding and large grains assessed via morphological awareness), mediators (i.e., word reading, listening comprehension, and oral vocabulary), and transfer were explored. The results suggest that morphological awareness and phonological decoding contributed to reading comprehension in Spanish whereas only morphological awareness contributed to reading comprehension in English. For mediators, listening comprehension played a larger role than word reading in supporting reading comprehension in Spanish and English, but oral vocabulary only contributed in Spanish. No significant role of cross‐language transfer was found. Theoretical and educational implications are discussed. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/lang.12127 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1735640422</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1069929</ericid><sourcerecordid>3758801041</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3947-9971ce83401c0186eb55651ea3eb73857f0489c06506244b5b801194da75c0c23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtv1DAUhS0EEkPbDXukSGxQpbR-O2FXtcPwSKcqBZWd5fHczLhknGBngP77Ok0ZoS56N77S-c7RlQ9Crwk-ImmOG-NXR4QSqp6hCeFS5WVJ6XM0wZiyvGCMvUSvYrzBaaiUE_T7K5il86vM-ex82_SuayC7CP26XQXTrR3E99mZq2sI4C3EzPhlduU2rjHB9UkdfP9FXHXGu7i-x6Z-1Qx73YbdXoEJHkLcRy9q00Q4eHj30PcP02-nH_PqYvbp9KTKLSv5cLwiFgrGMbGYFBIWQkhBwDBYKFYIVWNelBZLgSXlfCEWBSak5EujhMWWsj30bsztQvtrC7HXGxctNOmfoN1GTRQTkmNOB_TtI_Sm3QafrtNElkVZMMVVog5HyoY2xgC17oLbmHCrCdZDBXqoQN9XkOA3IwzB2R04_UywTLWUSSej_sc1cPtEkq5O5rN_mfnocbGHvzuPCT-1VEwJfT2f6ery_Lr6cTbXX9gdKXugZA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1698983747</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reading in Multiple Orthographies: Differences and Similarities in Reading in Spanish and English for English Learners</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Goodwin, Amanda P. ; August, Diane ; Calderon, Margarita</creator><creatorcontrib>Goodwin, Amanda P. ; August, Diane ; Calderon, Margarita</creatorcontrib><description>The current study unites multiple theories (i.e., the orthographic depth hypothesis and linguistic grain size theory, the simple view of reading, and the common underlying proficiency model) to explore differences in how 113 fourth‐grade Spanish‐speaking English learners (ELs) approached reading in their native language of Spanish, which is transparent, compared to their second language of English, which is more opaque. Contributions of different linguistic grain sizes (i.e., small grains assessed via phonological decoding and large grains assessed via morphological awareness), mediators (i.e., word reading, listening comprehension, and oral vocabulary), and transfer were explored. The results suggest that morphological awareness and phonological decoding contributed to reading comprehension in Spanish whereas only morphological awareness contributed to reading comprehension in English. For mediators, listening comprehension played a larger role than word reading in supporting reading comprehension in Spanish and English, but oral vocabulary only contributed in Spanish. No significant role of cross‐language transfer was found. Theoretical and educational implications are discussed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-8333</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-9922</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/lang.12127</identifier><identifier>CODEN: LNGLA5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Contrastive Linguistics ; Elementary School Students ; English ; English (Second Language) ; English as a second language ; English Language Learners ; English learners ; Grade 4 ; grain-size ; Interference (Language) ; Language Acquisition ; Language Proficiency ; Linguistic Theory ; Listening Comprehension ; Morphology ; Morphology (Languages) ; Native Language ; Oral Language ; Phonology ; Reading Comprehension ; Reading Processes ; Role ; Second Language Learning ; simple view ; Spanish ; Spanish language ; Spanish Speaking ; Transfer of Training ; Vocabulary Skills ; word reading</subject><ispartof>Language learning, 2015-09, Vol.65 (3), p.596-630</ispartof><rights>2015 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3947-9971ce83401c0186eb55651ea3eb73857f0489c06506244b5b801194da75c0c23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3947-9971ce83401c0186eb55651ea3eb73857f0489c06506244b5b801194da75c0c23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Flang.12127$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Flang.12127$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1069929$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Goodwin, Amanda P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>August, Diane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calderon, Margarita</creatorcontrib><title>Reading in Multiple Orthographies: Differences and Similarities in Reading in Spanish and English for English Learners</title><title>Language learning</title><addtitle>Language Learning</addtitle><description>The current study unites multiple theories (i.e., the orthographic depth hypothesis and linguistic grain size theory, the simple view of reading, and the common underlying proficiency model) to explore differences in how 113 fourth‐grade Spanish‐speaking English learners (ELs) approached reading in their native language of Spanish, which is transparent, compared to their second language of English, which is more opaque. Contributions of different linguistic grain sizes (i.e., small grains assessed via phonological decoding and large grains assessed via morphological awareness), mediators (i.e., word reading, listening comprehension, and oral vocabulary), and transfer were explored. The results suggest that morphological awareness and phonological decoding contributed to reading comprehension in Spanish whereas only morphological awareness contributed to reading comprehension in English. For mediators, listening comprehension played a larger role than word reading in supporting reading comprehension in Spanish and English, but oral vocabulary only contributed in Spanish. No significant role of cross‐language transfer was found. Theoretical and educational implications are discussed.</description><subject>Contrastive Linguistics</subject><subject>Elementary School Students</subject><subject>English</subject><subject>English (Second Language)</subject><subject>English as a second language</subject><subject>English Language Learners</subject><subject>English learners</subject><subject>Grade 4</subject><subject>grain-size</subject><subject>Interference (Language)</subject><subject>Language Acquisition</subject><subject>Language Proficiency</subject><subject>Linguistic Theory</subject><subject>Listening Comprehension</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>Morphology (Languages)</subject><subject>Native Language</subject><subject>Oral Language</subject><subject>Phonology</subject><subject>Reading Comprehension</subject><subject>Reading Processes</subject><subject>Role</subject><subject>Second Language Learning</subject><subject>simple view</subject><subject>Spanish</subject><subject>Spanish language</subject><subject>Spanish Speaking</subject><subject>Transfer of Training</subject><subject>Vocabulary Skills</subject><subject>word reading</subject><issn>0023-8333</issn><issn>1467-9922</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kUtv1DAUhS0EEkPbDXukSGxQpbR-O2FXtcPwSKcqBZWd5fHczLhknGBngP77Ok0ZoS56N77S-c7RlQ9Crwk-ImmOG-NXR4QSqp6hCeFS5WVJ6XM0wZiyvGCMvUSvYrzBaaiUE_T7K5il86vM-ex82_SuayC7CP26XQXTrR3E99mZq2sI4C3EzPhlduU2rjHB9UkdfP9FXHXGu7i-x6Z-1Qx73YbdXoEJHkLcRy9q00Q4eHj30PcP02-nH_PqYvbp9KTKLSv5cLwiFgrGMbGYFBIWQkhBwDBYKFYIVWNelBZLgSXlfCEWBSak5EujhMWWsj30bsztQvtrC7HXGxctNOmfoN1GTRQTkmNOB_TtI_Sm3QafrtNElkVZMMVVog5HyoY2xgC17oLbmHCrCdZDBXqoQN9XkOA3IwzB2R04_UywTLWUSSej_sc1cPtEkq5O5rN_mfnocbGHvzuPCT-1VEwJfT2f6ery_Lr6cTbXX9gdKXugZA</recordid><startdate>201509</startdate><enddate>201509</enddate><creator>Goodwin, Amanda P.</creator><creator>August, Diane</creator><creator>Calderon, Margarita</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201509</creationdate><title>Reading in Multiple Orthographies: Differences and Similarities in Reading in Spanish and English for English Learners</title><author>Goodwin, Amanda P. ; August, Diane ; Calderon, Margarita</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3947-9971ce83401c0186eb55651ea3eb73857f0489c06506244b5b801194da75c0c23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Contrastive Linguistics</topic><topic>Elementary School Students</topic><topic>English</topic><topic>English (Second Language)</topic><topic>English as a second language</topic><topic>English Language Learners</topic><topic>English learners</topic><topic>Grade 4</topic><topic>grain-size</topic><topic>Interference (Language)</topic><topic>Language Acquisition</topic><topic>Language Proficiency</topic><topic>Linguistic Theory</topic><topic>Listening Comprehension</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>Morphology (Languages)</topic><topic>Native Language</topic><topic>Oral Language</topic><topic>Phonology</topic><topic>Reading Comprehension</topic><topic>Reading Processes</topic><topic>Role</topic><topic>Second Language Learning</topic><topic>simple view</topic><topic>Spanish</topic><topic>Spanish language</topic><topic>Spanish Speaking</topic><topic>Transfer of Training</topic><topic>Vocabulary Skills</topic><topic>word reading</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Goodwin, Amanda P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>August, Diane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calderon, Margarita</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Language learning</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Goodwin, Amanda P.</au><au>August, Diane</au><au>Calderon, Margarita</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1069929</ericid><atitle>Reading in Multiple Orthographies: Differences and Similarities in Reading in Spanish and English for English Learners</atitle><jtitle>Language learning</jtitle><addtitle>Language Learning</addtitle><date>2015-09</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>65</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>596</spage><epage>630</epage><pages>596-630</pages><issn>0023-8333</issn><eissn>1467-9922</eissn><coden>LNGLA5</coden><abstract>The current study unites multiple theories (i.e., the orthographic depth hypothesis and linguistic grain size theory, the simple view of reading, and the common underlying proficiency model) to explore differences in how 113 fourth‐grade Spanish‐speaking English learners (ELs) approached reading in their native language of Spanish, which is transparent, compared to their second language of English, which is more opaque. Contributions of different linguistic grain sizes (i.e., small grains assessed via phonological decoding and large grains assessed via morphological awareness), mediators (i.e., word reading, listening comprehension, and oral vocabulary), and transfer were explored. The results suggest that morphological awareness and phonological decoding contributed to reading comprehension in Spanish whereas only morphological awareness contributed to reading comprehension in English. For mediators, listening comprehension played a larger role than word reading in supporting reading comprehension in Spanish and English, but oral vocabulary only contributed in Spanish. No significant role of cross‐language transfer was found. Theoretical and educational implications are discussed.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/lang.12127</doi><tpages>35</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0023-8333 |
ispartof | Language learning, 2015-09, Vol.65 (3), p.596-630 |
issn | 0023-8333 1467-9922 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1735640422 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Contrastive Linguistics Elementary School Students English English (Second Language) English as a second language English Language Learners English learners Grade 4 grain-size Interference (Language) Language Acquisition Language Proficiency Linguistic Theory Listening Comprehension Morphology Morphology (Languages) Native Language Oral Language Phonology Reading Comprehension Reading Processes Role Second Language Learning simple view Spanish Spanish language Spanish Speaking Transfer of Training Vocabulary Skills word reading |
title | Reading in Multiple Orthographies: Differences and Similarities in Reading in Spanish and English for English Learners |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T16%3A05%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reading%20in%20Multiple%20Orthographies:%20Differences%20and%20Similarities%20in%20Reading%20in%20Spanish%20and%20English%20for%20English%20Learners&rft.jtitle=Language%20learning&rft.au=Goodwin,%20Amanda%20P.&rft.date=2015-09&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=596&rft.epage=630&rft.pages=596-630&rft.issn=0023-8333&rft.eissn=1467-9922&rft.coden=LNGLA5&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/lang.12127&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3758801041%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1698983747&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1069929&rfr_iscdi=true |